Plaintiff Intel Corporation ("Intel") alleges:

1. Intel is a Delaware Corporation, With its principal place of business in Santa Clara County, California and facilities at Folsom in Sacramento County, California.
2. Defendant Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi ("Hamidi") is a resident of Sacramento County, California.
3. Defendant FACE-Intel, formerly known as AXE-Intel, is a purported California nonprofit organization, with its principal place of business in Sacramento County, California.
4. Hamidi is the designated spokesperson for FACE-Intel.

 

 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Trespass to Chattels)

5. Intel realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 4 as if fully set forth herein.
6. Intel maintains an internal proprietary computer system on which employees communicate using electronic mail ("e-mail").
7. The internal e-mail addresses of Intel employees are confidential and proprietary information.
8. Defendants obtained a list of these internal e-mail addresses and on multiple occasions, prior to and during 1998, sent e-mail to Intel employees on Intel's internal e-mail system.
9. On March 17, 1998, Intel demanded that defendants cease and desist in their unauthorized e-mail directed to company employees on the Intel proprietary computer system.
10. Despite this demand , Defendants refused to stop the transmissions and continue to send unauthorized and unrequested e-mail, trespassing on the Intel proprietary computer system.
11. As a result, Intel has incurred expenses attempting to block or purge the unauthorzed, unrequested and unwanted messages from their computer system.
12. Intel suffered and continues to suffer actual damages as a direct and proximate result of defendants' e-mail spamming in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

 

____________________________

One recent e-mail message was directed to approximately 29,000 employees.

Such unauthorized and unrequested e-mail messages are commonly referred to as "spam" and the act of sending such messages is known as "spamming."

13. Intel realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 12 as if fully set forth herein.

 

 

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Nuisance)

14. defendants' spamming of Intel's proprietary e-mail system has and continues to interfere with Intel's use and enjoyment of its computer system.
15. Intel suffered and continues to suffer actual damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' e-mail spamming in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

REMEDIES

Wherefore, Intel asks this court for judgment against Defendants, as follows:

1. For actual damages in an amount proven at trial;
2. For a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, Sections 525-527, preventing further unauthorized and unrequested e-mail directed to the Intel proprietary computer system;
3. For permanent injunction preventing further unauthorized and unrequested e-mail directed to the Intel proprietary computer systems;
4. For such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: October 6, 1998

MICHAEL A. JACOBS

LINDA E. SHOSTAK

MORRISON & FOERSTER

 

(signature of Michael A. Jacobs) By:_______________________________ Michael A. Jacobs Attorneys for Plaintiff INTEL CORPORATION